AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was convicted of battery against a household member. The incident involved the Defendant picking up the Victim by the arms and throwing her against a wall. The Defendant and Victim were in a dating or intimate relationship, and on the day of the incident, the Defendant entered the Victim's apartment uninvited and appeared to be unhappy and angry. The Victim testified that the Defendant grabbed her by the arm and threw her against the wall while yelling at her (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Bernalillo County, Ross C. Sanchez, District Judge: Affirmed the metropolitan court conviction for battery against a household member.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for battery against a household member. Additionally, contended that the prosecutor tainted the process by asking leading questions and improperly coaching the Victim during her testimony (paras 2, 5).
• Appellee (State): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the Defendant's conviction for battery against a household member.
• Whether the prosecutor's conduct in eliciting testimony through leading questions and coaching the Victim was improper and if the district court erred in not addressing this conduct.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment affirming the Defendant's conviction for battery against a household member (para 6).

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, with Michael E. Vigil, Chief Judge, and J. Miles Hanisee, Judge concurring:
  The Court reviewed the sufficiency of the evidence under the standard that requires viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the guilty verdict. It concluded that the evidence, particularly the Victim's testimony about the Defendant's actions during the incident, was sufficient to support the conviction (para 2).
  The Court addressed the Defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's conduct, noting that the Defendant did not object to the leading questions or the alleged improper refreshing of the Victim's recollection at trial. It determined that these issues did not constitute fundamental error and, therefore, did not provide grounds for reversing the conviction. The Court also noted that the Defendant's memorandum in opposition raised arguments beyond the scope of the sole issue in the docketing statement and denied an implicit motion to amend the docketing statement to include additional issues (paras 4-5).